I disagree. Skill choices in the game as it is can alter the playstyle in regard to what kind of combat you're seeking out (and what you try to avoid), what kind of missions you're better at, and how efficient it is to build your fleet one way or another. There is room for far more specialization, and I think the game would only benefit by providing it. Sandboxes tell stories, and stories about how youre good at everything are boring. In addition, there are upcoming features that will add more opportunity for specialization.
The only thing keeping the game from enforcing more specialization at present is how wide open the economy is, and how easy it is to make money. If the economy tightens (as it should), it will no longer be cost efficient to build jack of all trades fleets that can do everything.
Example: Running bounty missions is profitable if your fleet and skill selection makes your fleet efficient at combat (need to spend fewer supplies on ship deployment and repair costs, need to drag around fewer ships that dont contribute to combat effectiveness). Run a dedicated combat fleet with just enough fuel ships to get you where you need to go and back, and the skills to make that fleet effective at combat with minimal deployment, and bounty missions will always be insanely profitable. Run a bloated fleet with a bunch of extra salvage and storage ships, skills that dont make you efficient at combat, and you can easily blow the entire mission reward with round trip travel, deployment, and maintenance costs.
The current economy trivializes ship acquisition, supply purchase, and fleet inefficiency, reducing overall game challenge. If that ever changes, as I expect it has to to provide any kind of challenge, you will have to specialize more to get ahead. If the game didnt provide a lot of opportunities for specialized playthroughs with different fleet compositions, I would have tired of it long ago. Otherwise the game would be just about pursuing the same superior ships over and over with each playthrough, and I would have tired of that rapidly.
Some games have skill choices that alter your playstyle, this is not that game, at least not right now. (Case in point, I'm a max industry + leadership/tech build and my fleet can demolish lvl 20 hero battlestations)
Your notion that the game will be so delicately balanced that your skill selection will determine if bounty missions are profitable or not... Sound so unfun
I really hope we don't end up there. More power to you if you like it, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Besides that, your example seems a bit contradictory. Right now, anyone and everyone can salvage most things and if you can't salvage something then you blow it up and salvage the debris instead. As such salvage ships are good for everyone. Further more, if you follow PCCL's example and quintuple supply costs and/or follow your example of locking down the economy more (I think that's what you were implying. Apologies in advance...), flying 4-20ly to the nearest bounty without storage and fuel ships and industry/leadership skills to reduce those costs will be
harder and less efficient.
Maybe what you were going for would be well served by having faction specific opportunities. The games I think told really good stories and had good replayability involved aligning the player with different factions each play through. Today you could go all Pirate, and that's pretty dope. Go rob people blind. Another play-through you could be the bounty hunter and chase down the pirates you used to play as in a previous life. Be a TT shill or Hegemony officer another day. Skills have nothing to do with it though.
I think the combat vs. industry dissonance will become worse once the economy is given more depth and there are outposts and all that jazz.
You had a number of other good points that deserve a thoughtful response but I'd rather go fly my Paragons around then keep writing.